Students produced a wide range of self-chosen hand-drawn representations, mostly frequency-based, but most summary statements only described the graph rather than its message¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Of 90 hand-drawn representations, 58% focused on frequency of measurements and 36% on the measured values, and of 84 summary statements the most frequent response was a strict description of the graph (35%, SOLO code 1) rather than a message combining variation and expectation (17%, code 3). → Lyn D English and Jane M Watson 2015

Evidence¶

Lyn D English and Jane M Watson 2015¶

Lyn D English and Jane M Watson. (2015). Exploring variation in measurement as a foundation for statistical thinking in the elementary school. International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0016-x

q2 · i? · design · r2

Analysis of hand-drawn representations (n = 90) and SOLO-coded summary statements (n = 84) from the single-student scenario. Table 5 reports 35% code 1, 27% variation description, 7% expectation, 17% both expectation and variation. "58% focused on the frequency (F) with which the measured values occurred."

"Of the 90 representations, 7% could not be interpreted, 36% focused on the actual measured values (V) and 58% focused on the frequency (F) with which the measured values occurred."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Statistical Reasoning — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Student groups' TinkerPlots text boxes for one student's data were mostly literal reports of plot aspects, and comparison text boxes for the two scenarios mostly made basic rather than reasoned comparisons — related